On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 18:20, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:04:22PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 17:45, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:54:27PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 10:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > All portions of governed files not labeled otherwise are owned by Hans
> > > > > > Reiser, and by adding your code to it, widely distributing it to
> > > > > > others or sending us a patch, and leaving the sentence in stating that
> > > > > > licensing is governed by the statement in this file, you accept this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adding things to the files without due notice of the change is
> > > > > *forbidden* by the GPL. Essentially this notice seems to say that you
> > > > > get the *additional* right to do such additions if you transfer your
> > > > > copyright to Hans Reiser. Formally that amounts to a dual-licensing
> > > > > scheme which is fine by the DFSG as long as one of the alternatives
> > > > > (i.e. GPL) is free.
> > > >
> > > > This is somewhat bogus. Reiser demands a specific form for the change
> > > > notices required by GPL (2)(a) -- you have to remove a sentence. And
> > > > this is certainly a requirement in addition to the GPL, which conflicts
> > > > with section (6).
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately, this doesn't actually work in the US. You can't transfer
> > > > copyright implicitly in the US -- you need signed paperwork (17 USC 204
> > > > (a)).
> > > >
> > >
> > > I respectfully thing you are reading the license all wrong here.
> Oops, I meant think not thing ;-)
> > >
> > > IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, but here is my reading:
> Still applies,
> > >
> > > The files are available under GPL, with no limitations.
> >
> > That's where we disagree. See below.
> >
> > > ... Eliding myself
> > >
> > > So far this should not be a problem.
> > >
> > > The Author claims, that if "You" modify a file without deleting
> > > the reference to the extended license and replacing it with pure
> > > GPL (or whatever), your changes become subject to the extended
> > > license which grants the Author the permission to make the code
> > > available under any license he chooses.
> >
> > That's not quite correct. He claims that he "owns" it. The only
> > possible meaning of that is a transfer of copyright. It turns out that
> > this doesn't actually work, but it's an attempt.
> >
> > > This is slightly more controversial, but essentially it works
> > > the same way as LGPL->GPL conversion: If you modify an LGPL file
> > > without changing the LGPL statement, your are putting your code
> > > under LGPL (or it is not distributable). However you can change
> > > the license from LGPL to pure GPL by simply changing the license
> > > statement.
> >
> > Yes, but that's written into the license, while this is tacked on in a
> > random separate file.
> >
>
> I see it a little differently:
>
> An LGPL library is subject to the LGPL which can be paraphrased
> as:
>
> "This license applies to files which begin with a conspicuous
> notice saying so. By distributing etc. this code you
> agree to Xxxx and get the right to Yyyy. If you want to, you
> may also irreversibly change the license to the GPL for your
> copy and copies subsequently made from that copy, you do
> that by changing the notice so it points to GPL, not this
> file". (The LGPL is written in very formal terms by top
> lawyers).
>
> The reiserfs library is subject to the README license which can
> be paraphrased as:
>
> "This license applies to files which begin with a conspicuous
> notice saying so. By distributing this code you agree to
> grant the original author all the rights he would have if he
> held the copyright in it and gain the possibility that he
> might pay you money in return. If you want to, you
> may also irreversibly change the license to the GPL for your
> copy and copies subsequently made from that copy, you do
> that by changing the notice so it points to GPL, not this
> file". (The README is written in less formal terms and may
> not have been grammar-checked by a lawyer).
>
> In neither case is the code really under the GPL. In both cases
> the license is explicitly GPL-compatible because it allows
> derived works (such as a compiled kernel binary or a forked
> version of glibc or reiserfs) to be placed under pure GPL. In
> both cases distributing with the original notice intact grants
> additional rights to some recipients (with very different
> benefits in return). In both cases exercising the GPL-only
> option for your changed copy implies a fork of the Program
> because the original author wants to keep his version under the
> original license.
>
> Hope this makes my comparison clearer.
OK, I agree [1] that this is a GPL-compatible license.
[1] speaking only for myself, not FSF.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"Once a man has tasted freedom he will never be content to
be a slave." - Walt Disney